Contents |
Name: Ruth Kan Sin Ting
Student no: n4910796
Born in Hong kong on the 3 June 1984 and moved to Singapore in 1997. I'm currently doing a Bachelor degree in Mass Communication in QUT. I hope to be a Public Relation practitioner in the future.
I still panic sometimes, forget to breathe. but i know there's something beautiful in all my inperfections. in which he held out for me to see, a strength that can never be taken away.
Lisa, J.B.S. "Mutiny On The Net: Ridding P2P Pirates of Their Booty," Emory Law Journal. Atlanta: Fall 2003.Vol.52, Iss. 4, pp.1907-1947.
This article provides a basic introduction to the architecture of peer-to peer technology and how Internet content such as books, movies and music are shared among users on such networks. The article cites examples from Napster, KaZza, Morpheus and Grokster. Sims points out that many copyright owners believe P2P networks will be the “death knell�? of copyright protection and are fighting to prevent their continued use. In the article, Sims also analyses how existing copyright doctrine such as Copyright Act 1976 and Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998(DMCA) applies to different aspects of P2P technology such as copying or distributing files for personal or commercial use.
Jeff, L. ,and Don, L. C. "Copyright policies and issues raised by A&M Records v. Napster: "The shot heard 'round the world" or "not with a bang but a whimper?"" Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. Chicago: Fall 2001.Vol.20, Iss. 2, pp. 280-289.
This article addresses the legal and practical issues surrounding the proliferation of Internet copyright infringement in the context of the suit filed against Napster by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), a nonprofit organization of music industry interests. The author lists out potential liability issues other P2P operators might face in the future in regards to the court ruling. The article also explains how the court ruling found Napster’s operation in violation to the Copyright Act 1976 and is liable in two ways: vicarious infringement and contributory infringement. Napsters did not engage in any direct copyright infringement, because copyrighted files did not pass through their servers. However, they still run afoul of copyright law, because of their assistance and supervision of the direct infringement of their users. The author also details the defenses Napster had against infringement allegations. Napster sought the protection of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the fair use doctrine, the Audio Home Recording Act 1992 and court decision of the Sony v Universal (1984) trial. But the court eventually rejected each of these defenses. Finally, List out problems for copyright in the Digital Age where P2P technology will continue to grow in popularity and the article also gives potential legislative and technological solutions to these problems.
Sheila, M. H. "Digital Copying and File Sharing On Trial," Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal.Clifton: Apr 2002.Vol.14, Iss. 4, pp. 1- 8.
This article closely examines the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) and Heidmiller gives a breakdown of the different sections of the Act. It is cited in the article that the DMCA was enacted in 1998 in an effort to ensure that copyrighted content would continue to be protected in the digital environment and also to provide enough flexibility to allow Internet technologies and businesses to flourish. But in many cases, Heidmiller explains, DMCA limits are being tested, especially in the context of digital copy and peer to peer filesharing. He gives the example of A & M Records v. Napster and explains how DMCA in some areas is not clearly defined. Heidmiller finally gives suggestions to the potential statutory reforms that could be made to the existing copyright laws.
Kevin, F. "Hunting Subscriber X," Telephony. Chicago: May 26, 2003.Vol.244, Iss. 11, pp. 22.
The article demonstrates the power of DMCA to bring copyright infringement allegations directly on individual P2P network users. The Act is clearly stated in the article, highlighting the section that “ allows for automatic issuance of subpoenas in DMCA cases without any judicial consideration�?. The article put this into context with the case between RIAA and Verizon Communication, an Internet network provider. RIAA issued several subpoenas and requested Verizon to provide the details of a DSL subscriber, who RIAA claims to be “harbouring a trove a pirated music�?. Despite Verizon legal defenses and constitutional claims, the court ruled in favour of RIAA and ordered Verizon to provide the details of this subscriber.
Nick, W. ,and Sarah, M. "Green Light for Grokster; Federal Appeals Court Rules File-Sharing Program Makers Aren't Violating Copyrights," Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Aug 20, 2004. pp. B.1.
In this newspaper article, the San Francisco court affirmed that the two makers of file-sharing programs -- Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. -- are not violating copyright laws by simply making software available that allows individuals to trade music, movies and other digital content. This ruling is reported to be significant because it came from the same court that played a role several years ago in shutting down the online activities of Napster Inc. The court decided that unlike Napster, Grokster and StreamCast are not operating central computers that act as master directories that steer users to files, including pirated content, on other computers across the Internet. Also, the article reports that because of the design of their software, the file- sharing companies don't have the ability to prevent piracy at the time it occurs. But in contrast, courts previously ruled that Napster had the ability to prevent downloading of pirated files because it operated a central directory and could block access to suspect files.
Niels, S. "Direct Infringement On Peer-To Peer Networks." Journal of Internet Law. New York: Apr 2005.Vol.8, Iss. 10, pp. 1- 18.
The author talk of how there is a complete lack of reasoning support for the copyright liability principle in cases such as Napster and MGM v. Groskter and little discussion of the direct liability of the users in P2P networks. In the article, Schaumann analyses the activities of P2P users to determine more precisely which, if any, of their actions in fringe copyright. He suggests that users of a P2P network may be downloaders (clients), distributors (servers), or both. Because the activities of downloaders differ from those of distributors, the legal consequences may differ as well; in the case of users who both download and distribute, both sets of consequences will attach. He then goes on to further argue that the nature of copyright legislation requires courts to be especially careful and precise in determining the contours of infringing noncommercial conduct by members of the public. Schaumman’s analysis concludes that copying by P2P users does not infringe copyright but that distribution does.
Tom, Z. J. "Senate Bill Aims at Makers of File-Sharing Software," New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Sep 30, 2004. pp. C.7.
The newspaper article reports on a pending bill introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee that stands at the center of the file-sharing debate- the Induce Act, or the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004. The article cites that unlike other bills, the Induce Act is aimed at the makers of peer-to-peer file-sharing software, rather than at those who use it. The bill would hold liable anyone who intentionally aids, abets, induces or procures copyright infringement. Supporters such as senator, Bill Frist of Tennessee are reported to say that the bill is needed to curb abuses of intellectual property rights. While, the opponents, namely the American Conservative Union and National Heritage Foundation contend in the article that its broad language will stifle innovation and threaten a huge range of legitimate activities.
James, S. H. "Recent Development: Debating the Proposed Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention Act: Should Copyright Owners be Permitted to Disrupt Illegal File Trading Over Peer-to-Peer Networks?" North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology. North Carolina: Spring 2003.Vol 4, Iss 2,pp. 375-415.
The article analyses a bill introduced in U.S congress called the peer-to-peer Prevention Act, which, could possibly amend the existing U.S Copyright law. The bill if enacted would protect copyright owners from legal action stemming from “blocking, diverting, or otherwise impairing the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of his or her copyrighted work on a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network.�? The article cites that the legislation would "limit the liability of copyright owners for protecting their works on peer-to-peer networks." In the document, Humphrey questions the effectiveness of this bill and addresses some of the ambiguities and possible difficulties presented by it. He questions whether the bill would “legalize hacking�? for copyright holders and its implications on the privacy of P2P users. Humphrey argues the bill may go beyond the scope for which it was intended. Thus, suggesting that alternatives be explored before bill’s enactment.
Andrea, L. F. "Senate Approves Harsher Penalties for Copyright Violators; a Second Bill Opens the Door to Joint Patents," The Chronicle of Higher Education. Washington: Jul 9, 2004.Vol.50, Iss. 44, pp. A.31
This newspaper article gives an account of two approved bills that would ratchet up the prosecution and punishment of people who violate copyright law by swapping songs or movies online. One of the bills, called the Pirate Act (S 2237), would encourage the Justice Department to bring civil charges against suspected copyright violators and to seek fines normally reserved for criminal wrongdoing. The other copyright bill, the Artists' Rights and Theft Act (S 1932), dubbed the Art Act, would impose criminal fines on people who copy or even attempt to copy movies illegally in theaters. It is reported in the article that this two copyright bills are mainly targeted at people who use peer-to-peer networks, such as KaZaA or Morpheus.
--Ruth kan 12:48, 12 Aug 2005 (EST)
File sharing technology
File sharing usually follows a peer-to-peer model, where individual people store files that they want to share on their hard disks and share them directly with other people. Most people who engage in file sharing are also downloading files that other users share. Sometimes these two activities are linked together. Users run a piece of file sharing software that made this possible. Each user machine becomes a mini server in the file-sharing network. . All file sharing programs, such as Napster, Kazza and Limewire follow this model.
In the past, Napster was a centralised application, where a user would send a search to the centralized server of what they were looking for, i.e., song, video, movie. The server then sends back a list of which peers have the data and facilitates the connection and download.
Kazza, on the other hand differ from Napster such that its network is without a central index server and uses super nodes. In the network, all of the machines tell each other about available files using a distributed query approach. Currently, most peer to peer networks, such as Gnutella and Limewire follow this de-centralised approach.
One of the latest file-sharing applications is BitTorrent. It uses a file sharing system known as “swarming�?, which allows users to download different pieces of the file simultaneously from multiple computers. Unlike some other peer-to-peer downloading methods, BitTorrent offloads some of the file tracking work to a central server, a tracker. Another difference is that it uses a principal called tit-for-tat. This means that in order to receive files, you have to give them. This solves the problem of leeching or hording which is common on other file sharing networks. BitTorrent has proven to be useful for large and popular files.
Many have credited the increase in file-sharing to several technological factors; one of these would be the introduction Internet broadband, which allows faster and more efficient file transfer as compared to dialed up connections.
Another factor would be the widespread use of MP3 files and its ability to distribute music efficiently over the Internet and stored, has caused music file sharing to soar in popularity ever since Napster was first introduced in 1990. MP3 encoders and MP3 rippers have also made it possible for music lovers to convert audio from CDs to MP3, further encouraging the MP3 file sharing across the Internet.
In the past, it was hard for file swappers to upload the latest DVDs and share the files in the networks because of the Content Scrambling System encrypted in to the discs. But with the DVD decrypters, DeCss, available online for download, it has made this possible.
